Here is my first post, I'm basicly only posting this now to sort of test out the platform, and to have a sort of back-up for my writing.
So…
Uh.. Since I’ve seen quite a lot of labels like these being pushed onto
people lately. I thought I’d basicly compile a few arguments I’ve made
on a few posts on why you should simply stop using monosexual and
allosexual as terms. Since I basicly have to repeat myself so often I
thought I’d might as well put it into a post. Feel free to reblog.
1. Different, yes, shared, no. (in response to someone saying “multi and mono people” have different experiences)
There’s as much intersectionality between issues across “multi and
mono”, as there’s between “mono and mono” and “multi and multi”. There’s
much more shared experience between gay and bi people than there is
between gay and straight people. I am discriminated more against because
I’m not straight than I am for being an mga person. They’re only conceptualy similar, in reality, which is the place we
all live in, there is no historical distinguishing between mono
and
multi. The usage of monosexual as a term also carries the implication
that gay people are in the
category of privileged people. Since multi exclusively is a term that
has marginalised
people, and mono does not exclusively have marginalised people. Also,
throwing bi and pan together is erasure. So there’s no actual reason
that’s justified to use either. (mga is literally just a trait of what it means to be bi or pan, multi implies it’s one category)
2. Also, when people tell you to not group people together. Maybe you
should stop grouping them together? It erases people and it puts victims
of oppression together with their oppressors. And it also implies that
to some extent, gay people are to blame for biphobia and panphobia and
bi and pan erasure. That is what shared experience means. Shared social
roles, similar social power. (this part applies to both allo and mono)
3. Asexual spectra people define their identities by lack of sexual
attraction. Allosexual implies that non-ace people also define their
identities by sexual attraction. This is pushing a concept onto people
without their consent. When people express discomfort by this term, you
are very obviously invalidating their identity. Just because you picked
the labels for your own sexuality based off sexual attraction,
doesn’t mean you can push that
onto other people. These people are simply not asexual, that’s being
non-ace.
Allosexual would be defining your sexual orientation by simply the
existence of sexual attraction. Reinforcing the idea that being gay, bi
or pan is inherently sexual. How is this a hard concept to get? Also, why do you strive to make marginalised people uncomfortable?
4. Homophobes always refer to gay people (and most other lgbt+
people too) as sexual deviants, predatory, perverts or sex obsessed.
Defining their identity as dirty and inhertly just sexual. How is saying
that their identity is defined by sexual attraction any different from
all of this? It’s literally just attempting to sugar coat bigotry.
5. Often I see, especialy when the concept of split attraction modle is
involved. That the idea that everyone but aro/ace people by default have
to intensively experience sexual attraction. Which is what allosexual
means and pushes upon people. It implies that if you don’t define your
orientation by lack of attraction, you have to solely define it by
presence of sexual attraction. To define by sex. There’s nothing wrong
with defining your own orientation by sex, but it is fairly obvious that
people are uncomfortable with it when you push it onto them.
6. Now, a lot of this does not apply to monosexual, but I think
allosexual and monosexual share some similar issues. They both make
certain identities seem assimilative, or imitational of straightness.
7. Please just think about what you’re really saying when you call
people allosexual. Keep in mind that a lot of conversion therapy, a lot
of demonisation medicaly has been about classifying people as
fetishists, perverts and sexual deviants. I know very few that even want
homosexual, and have heard of people that only say bi. So do you
genuinely think those people would want terms pushed onto them that
reminds them of words that have literally caused deaths and devestation?
No comments:
Post a Comment